Re: Belgian Radar-Visual

From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 03:41:09 +0100 (MET)
Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 09:32:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual
>Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 00:17:05 +0100>From: Edoardo Russo <edoardo.russo@torino.ALPcom.it>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Belgian Radar-Visual>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>>>>a) item 11 above is but the same as item 10>>Ah! Well, in an earlier post someone said that atmospheric>>diffraction concerned visual observations.>Indeed. Atmospheric diffraction (be it due to termperature>inversion or humidity gradients) may concern both visual>observations and radar returns, since it may reflect both visible>light and radar beams. What's wrong with that?
What's wrong with that, what's wrong with that. I'll tell you
what's wrong with that. The temperature inversion reported by
James Easton appeared as a stationary triangular object with
three lights at its tips. I have reported this three times before
so you could have known this if you had read my posts with your
eyes open.
Now I take it that this same temperature inversion gave radar
returns that perform three 70 degree turns within a matter of
seconds, going supersonic in the process and breaking a radar
lock. Is this the same type of temperature inversion or another
type? Or was it temperature inversion for the triangle and
zombies/ghosts/angels for the radar returns?
>>cleared this up, would you please explain what this>>phenomenon actually is. How does a typical ghost/atmospheric>>diffraction behave in terms of altitude, speed, acceleration,>>heading? Do radar operators often confuse it for an aircraft?>Good Heaven! Do you mean that you know NOTHING about the 40+>years literature existing about UFOs and radar? Are you asking me>to do YOUR homework on that?
The temperature inversion 'explanation' is old hat, if you didn't
know. The UFO community has been treated to this bogus since the
early fifties and I am fully aware that most radar operators can
distinguish between the ghosts/angels and radar returns from
solid objects. I merely gave you the opportunity to provide one
or two instances of these ghosts that showed radar traces that
are similar to the ones recorded in the 22 sec. trace that I
showed here a few times. So far you haven't done that.
>Well so, if you like. I'd suggest you to find and read AT LEAST>the following items, before continuing to pontificate over>something you apparently are not well versed in:>- G.D. Thayer, "Optical and Radar Analysis of Field Cases", pp.>115-175; R. H. Blackmere et al., "Radar and the Observation of>UFOs", pp. 655-716; both papers in Daniel Gillmor (ed.),>"Scientific Study of Unidenified Flying Objects", Bantam, New>York 1969 [lenghty and scholar treatment of "angels" and other>anomalous propagation effects on radar, both theoretical and>applied to specific UFO radar cases. The most complete treatment>of the subject yet].>- Martin Lawrence Shough, "Radar and the UFOs", in Hilary Evans &>John Spencer (eds.), "UFOs 1947-1987", Fortean Tomes, London>1987, pp. 211-229 [a rather complete ufological-oriented overview>of radar nature, capabilities and limitations, problems of>anomalous propagation, ghost reflections, radio interference,>inversion reflections, previous literature on UFOs and radar,>plus several detailed examples of famous radar UFO cases and a>bibliography].>- Auguste Meessen, "La detection radar", in Michel Bougard et>al., "Vague d'OVNI sur la Belgique - Un dossier exceptionnel",>SOBEPS, Bruxelles 1991, pp. 351-396 [a thorough analysis of that>specific radar-visual case, with all pertaining data, possible>explanations and evaluation; most instructive and THE relevant>source for any subsequent discussion].>(And I could also add Allan Hendry's "The UFO Handbook", C. Sagan>& T. Page's "UFOs: A Scientific Debate", some papers by prof.>James McDonald, plus D. Menzel's "World of Flying Saucers", to>name but the best known sources devoting at least a chapter to>radar and UFOs.)
Eduardo, you don't really think I am going to read all this just
to please a debunker like you, do you? I have been engaged in
this discussion for weeks now and I have logged a total of 15
bogus explanations coming from the worldwide debunkers community.
So far their batting average for explaining the Belgian flap has
been 0 out of 15, so the odds are it's a total waste of time to
read all this, especially when I see stuff from a liar like
Menzel on this list. And even if I wanted to, I couldn't order
these items because I expect most of them to be out of print
anyway.
Which brings me to my final request: instead of throwing a pile
of books on the table as a diversion tactic, why don't you get
specific and explain yourself? What do you think lists such as
these are for in the first place? If you know how your
ghosts/zombies/angels/whatever could have produced the radar
traces that I presented, then prove to the world that you can do
better than putting out the debunkers' party line and get
specific. Here is your opportunity. I have asked you this before.
Just say how and we might get somewhere. And if you don't do that
in you next post, it's end of discussion.
>>>b) I am not its author, merely reporting it (mmmh! the>>>messenger-shooting habit is becoming more and more common here>>>'round, isn't it?)>>OK, then please give me the name of the author. Credit where>>credit is due.>If you mean as of the Belgian 30-31 March, 1990 case, the name of>Prof. Auguste Meessen should suffice.
August's son Christophe has reported here that not all traces
were ghosts/angels. If you want to explain them as such, then you
are the source.
>If you mean as of radar UFOs in general, we should dig it out>from an old issue of "Science" in 1952. For your knowledge, the>"radar angels" or "ghosts" have indeed been the subject of a lot>of scientific literature in the '50s and '60s, because of obvious>defense implications, let UFOs aside; BTW, new generation radars>have reduced the ENORMOUS number of that kind of returns since>the '70s, but they're still relatively frequent today, as any>radar operator will tell you, if you bother to ask).
Thank you for confirming that radar operators have known them for
ages and know that their characteristics are entirely
inconsistent with a fast accelerating signal that makes sharp
turns and breaks a radar lock at altitudes varying between 0 and
10000 feet.
>>No, there were 25 people waiting in the middle of the night>>with camcorders for the object to make simultaneous contact>>with ground and air radar and at that point someone said 'yes'>>and they all pushed the button. No, of course not,>>it concerns the whole flap.>Your supposed irony is out of place. Had you read the SOBEPS>reports, you'd know there WERE dozens of people out in those>night with videos and cameras, skywatching for the elusive UFOs:>some of those 25 videos you mention (but seem not to have seen,>as I have) were precisely taken by those volunteers, several>SOBEPS members and other ufologists among them (including Joel>Mesnard, editor of the French UFO Journal LDLN, who taped a light>on March 14). As for still pictures, there was more than the one>you numbered, because SOBEPS did get more than 50 during the>whole flap (and you'll find some analysis in the quoted book>about the wave, as well and in its second volume and in the>SOBEPS journal "Inforespace").
If you knew this, why did you ask in the first place?
>>Don't tell me, 6 tapes were doctored, 5 tapes were a flight of>>geese, 4 tapes were Venus, 3 other tapes were Jupiter, 6 tapes>>were atmospheric diffraction, 1 one was a private aircraft, 2>>might have been something, but we're not sure, so we don't have>>proof. Right?>Yawn! Am I discussing with somebody already convinced that EVERY>and EACH reported UFO sighting HAS to be an alien spacecraft? If>so, please tell me and I'll stop at once. I've long lost any>interest in religious quarrels.
So have I. And of course I don't think what you suggest. This
suggestion says a lot about you. Let me counter it by asking you
a question. Is there any case in the history of UFO cases that
you consider an 'unknown craft' or UFO?
>If that's not the case, can I just remind you that the everyday>homework of us field investigators is exactly filtering the 10%>UFO signal out from a 90% of IFO noise? Each case must stand or>fall on its own data. And - unfortunate as it may be - some of>those 30 (not 25) Belgian videos WERE of planes, Jupiter and the>rest of the much-too-well-known parade of typical IFO cases. Its'>not me who claim that (I were not there to collect and evaluate>Belgian data) but my esteemed colleagues at SOBEPS (Patrick>Ferryn's analysis was published you may guess where).
Fine.
>>I guess that would become bogus theory 13 (The Duke was number 12>>with his miscalibrated radar). Are you sure you want to get an>>unlucky number, Eduardo?>Oh dear! If I had been aware of being called names, I wouldn't>have been standing in this mine-field for the last twenty years,>would I? Since I've already been called nearly everything, from>"the most serious Italian ufologist" to "a CIA dupe", I think I>might well bear another one by a Henny van der Pluijm (if nothing>else, I would be in good company!).>BTW, 13 is held to be a lucky number, here in Italy. And>superstition is not a part of my weltanschaung, anyway.
Fine, then you remain in slot number 13 of my Bogus Hall of
Fame.
__________________________________________
/ Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \
Henny van der Pluijm
hvdp@worldonline.nl
Technology Pages
http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp
\______________________________________/